For cosmetic companies, the law is particularly relevant because many products use pumps, multilayer tubes, flexible pouches, airless systems and other packaging made from multiple components.
The restrictions were scheduled to apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026. However, on July 14, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 343 while the constitutional challenge to the law proceeds. The injunction does not repeal the statute, so companies should continue to monitor the litigation and the position of California authorities.
What does SB 343 regulate?
SB 343 does not prohibit companies from selling packaging that is not recyclable. Instead, it restricts recyclability claims.
Under the statute, the use of the chasing-arrows symbol, other symbols or statements indicating recyclability, or directions to recycle can constitute a misleading claim unless the product or packaging meets California’s definition of recyclability and is a material type and form that routinely becomes feedstock for new products or packaging.
This means that a material being technically recyclable somewhere in the world is not, by itself, enough to support a recycling claim in California.
The 60/60 requirement is only part of the test
One important element is the commonly cited 60/60 threshold.
Under the standard pathway, the material must be collected by recycling programs serving at least 60% of California’s population. It must also be sorted into defined recycling streams by facilities collectively serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, with the material sent to a reclaiming facility consistent with the Basel Convention.
But passing these thresholds does not automatically make the finished package recyclable.
The law also requires compliance with design and material criteria. For plastic packaging, components, inks, adhesives and labels must not prevent recyclability according to the APR Design® Guide. Additional requirements address certain intentionally added chemicals and PFAS.
There are also alternative statutory pathways, including certain non-curbside collection programs and products with a demonstrated recycling rate of at least 75%.
Why cosmetic packaging needs particular attention
Cosmetic packaging often combines materials that must be assessed as part of the finished package.
A PET or PP bottle, for example, cannot automatically be considered compliant simply because its main container is made from a commonly recycled resin. The closure, pump, label, adhesive or other components may affect whether the complete package satisfies the applicable design requirements.
Flexible packaging also deserves particular attention. CalRecycle’s material characterization work shows that several film and flexible material types do not meet the standard collection threshold, although the law contains alternative provisions that may apply to particular materials and collection systems.
For brands, the practical approach is therefore to assess the complete packaging system, rather than relying solely on the resin used for the main container.
The October 2026 deadline is currently on hold
The legal situation changed shortly before the scheduled compliance date.
On July 14, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on constitutional challenges concerning vagueness and commercial speech and ordered the California Attorney General and those acting in concert with him not to enforce SB 343 until further order of the court.
This is not a final ruling on the law’s validity. The litigation is continuing, so the legal position could change.
CalRecycle continues to state that the statutory labeling restrictions apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026, while also noting that products manufactured before that date are not subject to the restrictions regardless of when they are sold.
What should cosmetic companies do?
The injunction provides additional time, but it does not eliminate the need to understand the requirements.
Cosmetic companies should identify California packaging carrying the chasing-arrows symbol or other recyclability claims and review the entire package, including containers, pumps, closures, labels, adhesives and other components.
Manufacturers should also maintain supporting technical information from packaging suppliers and verify which statutory recyclability pathway applies to each format.
For new packaging projects, it may be prudent to consider alternative designs and labeling strategies now rather than waiting for the litigation to conclude.
The key point for cosmetic brands is that recyclability claims require more than choosing a recyclable resin. California’s framework looks at how the material is collected, sorted, processed and designed, while the current court injunction adds an important layer of legal uncertainty to the October 2026 timeline.
